November 27, 2005

Rove Over and Over

by emptywheel

I guess, when I noted in July that Rove was probably counseling Luskin on what to leak more than Luskin was counseling Rove on how to beat the rap, I was late to the party. Because apparently Luskin was leaking profusely--and obstructively--as early as May 2004. At least that's what we can surmise from the news that Viveca Novak (no relation to Bob) of Time magazine has a little appointment with Fitzgerald to talk about the leaking Luskin was doing.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about
conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May
2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or
contributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature of
what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter
who testified in the case.

This is the most complete Viveca Novak article I can find on Rove's testimony from 2004. There's nothing of interest, at least not that I can see. The most interesting speculation I've seen is from kathyp at DKos:

May 2004 Cooper was supoened so this timeframe is very interesting. Rove's attorney was talking
about Cooper even though they DENIED Rove spoke to Cooper. It wasn't
until the attorney Luskin "discovered" an email in October 2004 about
Rove meeting with Cooper that a conversation was acknowledged --- and
Rove had already met with investigators and testified once before the
grand jury, all the while "not recalling" a conversation with Cooper. So how can Luskin be talking about it in May when they denied it ever occured until October.

But while we're discussing Luskin leaks I'd like to look at the leak Luskin someone close to Rove gave John Solomon right after Rove testified last month.

The article is interesting because it answers a question about the Libby indictment some people have been asking. There was some question as to who was the witness to the following tidbit.

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.

Well duh. It seems obvious that it had to be Rove.(Particularly given the way the indictment doesn't rely on whether Rove told Novak or Novak told Rove--it's enough that the conversation transpired.) And Solomon confirms it:

Rove testified he told Libby about his contact with Novak about two days after it happened.

[snip]

Libby's testimony stated that Rove had told
him about his contact with Novak and that Libby had told Rove about
information he had gotten about Wilson's wife from NBC's Tim Russert,
according to a person familiar with the information shown to Rove.

That, by itself, is not that interesting But it does raise interesting questions about timing. Solomon doesn't specify during which of Rove's numerous grand jury appearances he was shown the Libby testimony. He says simply, "during one of [Rove's] grand jury appearances." But this story appears on October 19, right after Rove testified for his final time. So I'm guessing he gets shown this Libby testimony during that October appearance.

Presumably, Fitzgerald was asking how Rove could forget a conversation with Matt Cooper if he had had a conversation with Libby about journalists discussing Plame the same day--or the day before--he talked to Cooper about Plame.

But the tidbit appears in an article that includes one other interesting line, restrospectively.

Rove "has always clearly left open that he
first heard this information from Libby," said one person directly
familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony.

What do you want to bet that Libby and Rove talked about more than how weird it was that these journalists were calling out of the blue to ask about Plame? Never mind, I don't want to take your money.

In other words, in the midst of a leak about the conversations Rove and Libby had about their attack on Wilson, Luskin says--makes sure he's quoted directly, in fact--that Rove may yet blame Libby.

I guess he'd be more likely to do so after Fitzgerald got Rove on perjury charges to related to the Luskin leaks in May 2004.

» Fitzgerald, TIME and Source Confidentiality from The Left Coaster
Regarding the latest news that Time magazine's Viveca Novak will be interrogated by Patrick Fitzgerald regarding her conversation(s) with Rove's lawyer Robert Luskin, in comments to a post by Emptywheel Tom Maguire asks: Does anyone know, or care, why ... [Read More]

Tracked on November 28, 2005 at 11:51

Comments

"In other words, in the midst of a leak about the conversations Rove and Libby had about their attack on Wilson, Luskin says--makes sure he's quoted directly, in fact--that Rove may yet blame Libby.

"I guess he'd be more likely to do so after Fitzgerald got Rove on perjury charges to related to the Luskin leaks in May 2004."

Can you spell this out for my feeble little brain? When you say "he'd be more likely", you mean Rove would be more likely to blame Libby after Fitz got Rove on perjury? What question do you surmise Fitz asked about which Rove lied, and which would be exposed by V. Novak's testimony about Luskin?

The question that I think Fitzgerald is after is where Rove originally heard about Valerie Wilson and her CIA status. The Viveca Novak article you have is only one of many stories on Rove/Luskin that V. Novak reported on. Do a search on Time's website and you will find a few more articles written by other TIME reporters which mention Viveca Novak at the bottom of the article as one of the people who reported on the story. At least one, if not two, of the articles (sorry I lost the links when my browser crashed) mention that Luskin claimed Rove heard about Valerie Wilson either from a reporter or through an administration official who heard it from a reporter. I suspect this may be part of what Fitzgerald is interested in getting more details on.

If kathyp is right about the timing, then Luskin was leaking about Rove's conversation with Cooper before they "found" Rove's email about Cooper--that is, at the time when Rove was claiming he didn't speak to any reporters except for Novak. Which would be a pretty open and shut case for perjury, if your lawyer was leaking about something you were pretending not to remember, right?

Luskin goes onto say, in that article, that Rove testified he had heard of Plame twice before. But it doesn't sound like Rove was very forthcoming with the details. But really, if Rove is going to flip, he's going to flip on Dick or Libby, not on Shrub. So maybe Fitz is trying to shore up his perjury case against Rove so he can get him to tell the truth about these earlier discussions.

Not sure if this info will be useful at some point (I mentioned it briefly on firedoglake too), but I want to make sure it's out there, because it's a pretty strong hunch I have. Here's why I think Dick Cheney is one of Tom DeFrank's main sources. I watched DeFrank and Mitchell being interviewed at the same time about a month or two ago (maybe it was "Hardball"). DeFrank had recently written an article about the mood in the West Wing. Andrea Mitchell, speaking about DeFrank's credibility, said he's a veteran reporter with White House ties that go back to when Dick Cheney was Ford's chief of staff. She was clearly baiting DeFrank (she didn't have to mention Cheney, plus her tone was more passive aggressive than usual). So either Cheney was his source or she was warning him: don't mess with your old friends. But then DeFrank was asked if his source thought Cheney had been overly involved in intelligence (part of the article was about Cheney having been very involved in intelligence). DeFrank said he couldn't say without revealing too much about his source. Which made me think of course Cheney thinks he was very involved but not overly involved. But then you have to remember he's the same guy who picked himself to run for Vice President.

Remember how right before the libby indictment was handed down, FitzG reportedly talked to people about how calls to Rove got logged?

maybe Rove/Luskin found out about "Woodwards source" the week before indictments came down, and decided to tag Woodward as one of Rove's "other sources". Unfortunately, there is no record of meeting or phone call with Woodward, so Rove is saying it must have been another "unlogged call"....

The VNovak/Woodward connection is particularly interesting. You could argue her article was designed to make Woodward's source look good--so when it eventually came out (like, next week), it would reflect well on the source, as if he came forward of his own accord. So if you were really tight with VNovak, then you might point her to Woodward, or suggest her to him.

I was looking to find more stuff on V. Novak and came across the noted link. I has to do with her reporting on Whitewater for Time. I really doubt it sheds any light here but the quote in the article made me have deja vu

http://www.slate.com/id/28555/sidebar/28562

"It's those stories that are the real embarrassment for Time. The magazine--and Novak in particular--have consistently emphasized Steele's version of events...
But this natural, Darwinian journalistic instinct and the cozy source-reporter relationship it produced, resulted in Time presenting a warped account that led readers to think (wrongly, I believe) that Steele's Story No. 3 was the truth."

Anyone sensing a theme here...

My thoughts on this is that Luskin said something to V. Novak and now Fitzy wants to see if the leak broke the attorney client privledge and give him something admissable. THe theory about talking to her about Cooper before Rove admitted knowing about his is as good as any. I also am sure it cannot be a coincidence that this is coming on the heels of Woodward's testimony. What did Woodward say...?

Luskin was leaking about Rove's conversation with Cooper before they "found" Rove's email about Cooper--that is, at the time when Rove was claiming he didn't speak to any reporters except for Novak.

Well, what was he leaking? If he was saying in May that his client had no relevant conversation with Cooper, that hardly helps Fitzgerald make a case against Rove.

FWIW, and I am going from memory here, the second subpoena to Cooper was on a no-name basis - Fitzgerald did not seem to know who Cooper's source was (with the subpoena on Libby, Fitzgerald agreed to limit the subpoena to one named official, Libby).

Anyway, I am not sure I get the kathyp theory - she thinks that when Cooper was subpoenaed on a no-name basis, Luskin said to Viveca, in effect, "Oh, Fitzgerald wants to talk to Cooper about a chat with Rove that we have been concealing?"

What if Viveca asked Luskin whether Cooper and Rove had talked? I suppose his answer might be interesting. But why isn't it covered by source confidentiality?

Does anyone know, or care, why TIME is not arguing any source confidentiality issues?

Their story is silent on that point - are they just an arm of the Fitzgerald investigation now? Will that be true of TIME on all government cases going forward?

>>> Does anyone know, or care, why TIME is not arguing any source confidentiality issues? Their story is silent on that point - are they just an arm of the Fitzgerald investigation now? Will that be true of TIME on all government cases going forward?

Why should TIME argue source confidentiality when the name of the source has been published by TIME previously? Also, unless the conversations with the source were off the record, the content of those conversations is not subject to source confidentiality either. Luskin spoke to TIME because he wanted to get a load of BS off his chest and into print. So, everything he said that was not off the record is totally NOT subject to source confidentiality.

It amazes me that Luskin would talk so freely to the press and hand out as much information as he does.

I understand you want to manage public relations, but every time you speak, there is the potential of inconsitent testimony or trapping yourself into what subsequently turns out to be the wrong line of testimony.

Well, it looks like Phase 2 of Fitzkrieg has begun, and now Fitz is targeting not only the principals, but their attorneys as well. Just as Libby dragged his attorney Tate into the middle of this muck, it looks like Rover has done the same to Luskin.